Q: Is it discrimination to treat people differently based solely on where they live?

A: In California, the practice of charging victims of auto theft for the recovery of their vehicles can indeed feel unfair, especially when there are disparities based on residency. The distinction in fees based on where one lives might not necessarily constitute discrimination in the legal sense, as it could be tied to municipal or county policies regarding the handling and administrative costs of recovered property. However, the perception of unfairness is understandable, as it imposes a financial burden on victims rather than offering uniform support regardless of residence.

If you are looking to address this issue, your first step could be to inquire with the local police department that recovered your vehicle to understand the policy's rationale and whether exceptions or waivers are available for non-residents. It is also advisable to contact the town's government or municipal office where your car was recovered to express your concerns and seek clarification on the policy. They may offer guidance or potential recourse. Engaging with local elected officials or a legal advisor can also provide avenues to advocate for policy changes or to challenge the fee if it seems unjust or inconsistently applied.

Regarding the legal distinction between charging fees for recovered vehicles and not for other types of property like jewelry, it often comes down to the specific legal frameworks and municipal codes that govern the handling of stolen property. Vehicles, due to their size, the need for storage, and the logistics of towing, incur costs that municipalities may seek to recoup. However, questioning this disparity is reasonable, and seeking legal advice might help you understand your rights and any potential actions you can take. This could include consulting with an attorney who has experience in consumer rights or municipal law to explore if there are grounds for contesting the charge based on principles of fairness or equity.